The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 21, 2011, 09:29 AM   #26
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,187
For 90% of hunting it would probably be OK, but it's the other 10% of the time that most game is taken.

I'm going to refrain from asking if Casey Stengel was related.
tirod is offline  
Old October 21, 2011, 11:45 AM   #27
timelinex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2011
Posts: 231
Quote:
Thing is, a lot of guys shoot the same distance, at the same range, most- or all- of the time.

So, they zero at say, 100 yards, and never adjust the elevation or even the windage...

As long as the scope holds zero, there's never an issue...and the scope will "function" perfectly. It doesn't matter how clear the glass is, or how accurate the clicks are- they're never used.

Now, if you're a long range hunter, or target shooter, that's constantly dialing up twenty mils of elevation, and compensating for windage , that's when the precision and repeat-ability of better scopes becomes evident.

If that .25 MOA click is really .20, or is not exactly the same each time, any minor deviations at 100 yards quickly become evident when you multiply by ten when shooting at 1,000.
Exactly. Not only the repeatability but just durability as well. My last match I must have cranked the turrets ,quickly, back and forth atleast 40-50 times that day; including all the way down and all the way to the top. I don't know how confident I would be doing that to my BSA.

By the way, you have a pm
timelinex is offline  
Old October 21, 2011, 12:07 PM   #28
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,963
Got it...and so do you!
tobnpr is offline  
Old October 21, 2011, 12:10 PM   #29
9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2011
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 2,711
Walmart shows you oreviews, like 124 of them. Go by that figure if you want it.

It seams many people love them, but theres quite a few people who hate them, broken part, cloudy, doesn't hold to higher recoil.



I would say a yes for $70 and you can return if it doesn't work.

I would only use this for a 22lr.

I saw a leopards scope @ opticsplanet for $72

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leapers-...iflescope.html
look here
__________________
See user title
9mm is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 07:59 AM   #30
hooligan1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2010
Location: Independence Missouri
Posts: 3,298
Hey Crankylove, my son just put a 4x12x40 Redfield Revolution on his 3006, and we put fourty rnd through it last saturday. It's a nice scope for the money. But these Bubble packed scopes of Wally world just seem to me like a wasted bunch of fuel, buy it and take it home, mount it and take it to the range, (where it goes foggy after fifth round), take it back to house and dismount the scope, find the receit, ( which can suck) drive all the way back to wally-world and tell the service desk lady why you want to return it, (which she doesn't have a dang clue "what your telling her", then get your doe back or pick up a new one........


Fellas my only conclusion would be to study all the reviews you can before purchase.... BECAUSE IN THE LONG RUN,,, HOW MUCH PATIENTS DO WE WANT TO BE LEFT WITH?
__________________
Thanks for coming!
hooligan1 is online now  
Old October 22, 2011, 08:20 AM   #31
Palmetto-Pride
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,899
There's the old saying "You don't always get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get"
__________________
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

-Margaret Thatcher-
Palmetto-Pride is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 08:59 AM   #32
Jeff56
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Posts: 116
Quote:
There's the old saying "You don't always get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get"
Sorry friend but that old saying is pretty much worthless in today's world. I work with video for a living. I've bought brand name lenses for $2. They were (and are - I still have one) excellent quality and every bit as good as lenses that cost 100 times as much. So much for good glass being expensive.

Also it takes a lot more than $65 to get a scope with repeatable adjustments. My $400 Weaver T-36 won't do it either so I'm not sure how much you have to pay to get one that will work as it should. Of all the scopes I have none of them work that well and I have a bunch of them most of which are thought of as good scopes. Kentucky windage is a much more reliable method of making adjustments IMO.
Jeff56 is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 10:21 AM   #33
Crankylove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2008
Location: The land of green Jello and vanilla icecream
Posts: 1,289
Hooligan.....mine isn't so much foggy, its more that after the magnification goes up to about 6X or higher, the outer edges of the scope go blurry, and you are left with about 1/4" in the center that you can actually see through. It does this with every shooter that has fired it, with eye relief adjusted from one end to the other........kind of annoying......and there is no reciept, so untill I get the Redfield I have been looking at, I am stuck with it.

I don't mess with changing clicks on my scopes once they are sighted in, they get a S.W.A.G. for windage and elevation instead, and it usually works pretty well. So, as far as durability, and repeatability, I couldn't really say how it is holding up.

Mine is mounted on a Browning 1885..........and that scope is sooooooo out of place on that rifle. If you can get past the huge size and weight of the scope, and manage to find your target within the teeny un-blurry spot in the scope, it is a very accurate combo........just ugly......and hard to shoot well.

I was at Wally World last night, and saw the same scope I have selling for $70. If mine worked without the blurriness, I would say $70 is a decent price for that scope........but since mine doesnt work well......I would rather another $120 and get another Rifleman.
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776
Crankylove is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 11:17 AM   #34
timelinex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2011
Posts: 231
Buy the new one and return this one
timelinex is offline  
Old October 22, 2011, 11:28 AM   #35
BlackJackID
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2011
Posts: 159
I have one and would rate it as a decent scope. Considering how little it costs per feature I would say its a great valued scope.

I like it, at the moment its mounted ona savage model 10FP .308 until I can get a better one. But To compare it to a Nikon/Leupold etc, is unfair and useless, as there is no comparrison. I wont even pretend that it can hold its own to the bigger brands. The glass starts to get fringing after about 10x magnification, and it doesnt gather light as effectively as others. The lighted reticles work, but it also lights up an outer ring around them.

What I will say it does is hold zero, mines been kicking around all hunting season, and because I worry because its a cheap scope, I make sure its zeroed before each outting, and it hasnt failed to hold a 200 yard zero yet.

Also, it seems to be repeatable fairly well, I have ran it through some paces at ranges from 100-700 yards, cranking turrets, and it does seem to return to zero when I want it to...does that mean it would hold up to this repeatedly..nope, just means it did when I tested it.

It is, in my opinion, aesthetically pleasing.

All in all it has done what I needed it to do, which is, after blowing my spending money on a rifle, be an interim scope that will perform its job reasonably until I can afford better optics. For 70 bucks, that seems like a steal to me. And when I do get a better scope in a few monthsI have no doubt that the centerpoint will serve another purpose, a spare just in case scope.

I think its all in what is it intended for...An interim scope...a scope to keep in your pack just in case your on a week long elk hunt and your rifle goes with you down a rockslide...whatever..I dont think its a competition grade optic, nor is it rugged enough to stand field use for long..One nevere gets More than what they paid for, but in my experience, Sometimes as long as you know what your paying for, youre never disapointed.

Regards
Duncan
BlackJackID is offline  
Old October 23, 2011, 03:48 PM   #36
HKGuns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2005
Location: Bora Bora
Posts: 886
Quote:
Could this $65 scope be a real sleeper?
Not very likely.
HKGuns is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 02:03 PM   #37
777funk
Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Posts: 21
I've had a few Centerpoints. A 3-9x40 came on a Remington (Crosman really) NPSS break barrel gas piston pellet gun. This is a decent scope for the money. It's held a zero pretty well.

I just picked up the 4-16x40 and it's similar. It seems to hold a zero well. But you might as well call it a 4-9 or 10 because the higher magnification settings are pretty milky/washed out looking. I guess if you don't mind a blurred image 16 would work for you but clarity or a good sight picture is NOT what I'd call it. But if you expect to only use up to say 9 power, it's not bad for the money. But the 3-9 is probably a better use of that same money since that's about what you get with the 4-16 power anyways. I'd bet their 4x fixed is an ok scope for the money as well.

That's what I've found using this scope. I'd buy another centerpoint. These seem to be a notch above the NCStars in the accuracy dept if you're going cheap. The picture on the NCStar may actually be a little better on higher power settings but then again I haven't compared back to back at the same time although I've owned both, both are clear optics for the buck. I sold the NCStar pretty quickly after getting baseball sized groups at 20 yards (vs nickel to dimed sized with the Centerpoint). I cannot recommend NC Star's 3-9x40. It's by far the worst scope (in my experience and with my shooting) that I've ever shot with. The Centerpoint shoots pretty good and I'd go so far to say great for the money.

Edit: Gotta give this scope a little more credit. I just took it out again and it's not bad up to about 12 or 14 power even 16 if the adjustable objective is perfectly focused is pretty useable. So... overall this is a pretty good value. Just got done shooting quite a few one holes from a rest at 20 yards with a 22. I'd call the ones that weren't right in there bad ammo or fliers (or maybe trigger pull). This really is a pretty decent scope for the money. I got it as a refurb for $40 plus shipping and really can't beat that.

Last edited by 777funk; May 20, 2013 at 03:24 PM.
777funk is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 02:16 PM   #38
TheNatureBoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Posts: 1,181
Quite possible. I have two $80 scopes on my .243 Ruger M77 and my
Interarms .280 and I've never had any problems at all.
TheNatureBoy is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 04:45 PM   #39
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
The Walking Dead thread...
csmsss is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 04:50 PM   #40
steveNChunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2012
Location: Southern Appalachian Mtns
Posts: 1,297
I have the Center-point 4-16x40 with lighted reticle and adjustable parallax. I had it on my 6mm remington for awhile before upgrading to a Burris. The center-point now resides on my 10/22 and has done an adequate job on both rifles but I believe it is better suited to the 10/22. I wanted an adjustable parallax on my 10/22 and the center point is one of the cheapset scopes out there with that feature. It is however very large and heavy, as others have said, and a little blurry at high magnification at closer range. But its a great scope to put on a rimfire that you dont want to sink a bunch of money into.

I'll also add that I have the 3-9x40 Bushnell Banner that Wal-Mart sells right beside the center-point. The Bushnell is a little brighter and clearer, and smaller and lighter, than the center-point. If you don't have to have adjustable parallax or 16x magnification I recommend the Bushnell. It also has a better illuminated reticle IMO than the center-point. The center section of the crosshairs is all that lights up on the Bushnell, and it has very thin lines, whereas the entire crosshairs light up thick and bold on the center-point, making what your looking at look even darker in contrast.
__________________
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it. - Clint Eastwood

Last edited by steveNChunter; May 20, 2013 at 04:55 PM.
steveNChunter is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 07:49 PM   #41
KINGoFOOLS
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2013
Posts: 9
I have two of them one on a Savage 10 FCP-K and an AR10 they hold zero and will shoot sub moa at 200 yards.
KINGoFOOLS is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 08:12 PM   #42
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,262
Most of the reviews on this CP 4-16x scope seems positive. For a $65 budget scope its not bad. Of course don't expect quality glass like you would on a Nikon/Leopold, but then again your not paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for this cheap Centerpoint.

For basic plinking and occasional hunting, this scope should be fine. I've seen this scope at my local Walmart and didn't really put much thought into it until this thread. I'll probably pick one up and use it as a backup to my 10/22 and AR15 scopes.

You really can't expect too much out of a $65 scope. if you needed top quality glass, reliability, and repeatability, then obviously you need to go with a higher end scope.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 12:03 PM   #43
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Old thread but what the hell.....

In the world of scopes the Centerpoints are near the bottom. Most work, some don't. But there's a big difference between working and being good and anyone who rates these scopes as good hasn't used a good scope in their life. Ever. It all comes down to expectations and 99.99% of cheap scope buyers aren't expecting much. Can't say as I blame them. I'm not one to think you need to spend as much on a scope a you do on a gun but there is a huge difference between scopes costing $50-$75 and those in the $150-$200 range.

Want something for a plinker or that hunting rig that hides in the closet most of the year then a Centerpoint will likely get the job done. I had one that was bad, returned it for a second which worked. POS compared to my Redfeild 2-7X but it worked. Keep your receipt is good advice.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 08:11 PM   #44
777funk
Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Posts: 21
I just finished some indoor shooting (moved the scope to my QB78 PCP airgun) and once again above 9 or so, the image is pretty milky. But it does seem to hold a zero.

I just ordered a Bushnell 4200 Elite Series made in Japan. I'm sure there will be no comparison. I've checked out the Leupold Rifleman and the Nikon Prostaff a few weeks back and was impressed with the image quality at the highest power settings. I didn't care for the Nikon BDC (looked blurry and hard to find to my quick glance at it). I compared Walmart's $80 Centerpoint next to those and at the low power settings it did ok but no comparison at the higher power settings. I paid $40 for mine refurbished (bought two from Natchez). I think they were worth what I paid. Hopefully it holds up.
777funk is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 10:01 PM   #45
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS (new to MS)
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
I just ordered a Bushnell 4200 Elite Series made in Japan
I've got one. That is a great scope for the money.
Doyle is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 10:59 AM   #46
sc928porsche
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2008
Location: now living in alabama
Posts: 2,433
Throughout most of the years that I have hunted, there hasn't been much time for dialing in your target. Its best to know how your rifle and cartridge shoot at different distances. Once you know that, then all that is needed is a scope that holds zero and dosnt get so blurry that you cant see where your POI is going to be. I have inexpensive scopes and expensive ones. The expensive ones are used for long range target.
__________________
No such thing as a stupid question. What is stupid is not asking it.
sc928porsche is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 11:09 AM   #47
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 11,452
This is a 2-year old thread about a cheap scope resurrected by a newish member, and it has regained life. Hmmm. Maybe zombies are real.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Taylor Machine
Scorch is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 11:17 AM   #48
coldbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Woodhaven MI
Posts: 477
I have one on my Savage 9317 and it's held up fine even after putting it on my marlin 1895 and shooting a couple dozen rounds of mild to medium 45-70 loads. It's an adequate scope, I don't think you can do much better for the price just don't expect too much from it.
coldbeer is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 12:28 PM   #49
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,096
it's been my experience that as long as you buy it with low expectations that it'll probably exceed them but if you buy with high then it will more than likely fall short.

I won't spend another dollar on leupold/redfield scopes as long as I live yet I have no problem slapping on Nikons, leapers and barskas(assuming the barska is going on a 22lr)
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 12:33 PM   #50
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,950
Quote:
it's been my experience that as long as you buy it with low expectations that it'll probably exceed them but if you buy with high then it will more than likely fall short.
Well said.

I tried one of their red dots. It was AWFUL. They may well be the best sub $100 scope out there, but that is no claim to fame.
jmr40 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13143 seconds with 7 queries